Correspondence
Letters from SLA’s CEO and a Searcher-reading SLA member about a recent article and Searcher’s Voice column, respectively, on
matters concerning the Special Libraries Association.

SLA Protests

I am writing in response to the article
“Survival Lessons for Libraries: Staying Afloat
in Turbulent Waters — News/Media Libraries
Hit Hard,” which appears in the May 2010
issue of Searcher [http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/may10/Matarazzo_Pearlstein.shtml].
In their examination of the current landscape
surrounding closures of special libraries and
the loss of employment opportunities, authors
James Matarazzo and Toby Pearlstein make
a rather harsh assumption about the focus
of the Special Libraries Association (SLA),
and I would like to address their claims.

The authors state: “There are no statistics
that we can find on the number of corporate
special libraries and the number of openings,
reductions, and closures affecting them over
time. Such statistics would be invaluable for
identifying trends that could guide practitioners
in thinking strategically about their roles within
their organizations. The Special Libraries
Association appears to have its focus elsewhere,
although many of its members are in crisis. The
authors suggest that SLA is uniquely positioned
to collect and analyze this kind of data and
encourage the Association to make this a
priority of its efforts.”

While Matarazzo and Pearlstein are correct
that SLA has not conducted research that would
yield data and statistics about library closures, their conclusion that SLA is not focused on its
members who are in crisis is simply not true. SLA has, in fact, done extensive work to identify
trends and provide tools to guide members into
thinking strategically about their roles within
their organizations.
With so much information available online,
and with organizations and governments looking
for ways to cut costs, advocacy at the personal
level has taken on new urgency. People outside
the library world — and more than a few in it
— often have a very narrow, non-strategic view
of the capabilities of information professionals
and librarians. Without better knowledge to
this end, they cannot be expected to see the
critical strategic role librarians play in their
organizations. Without better knowledge, too
many librarians and even whole libraries are
becoming victims of budgetary crunches.
In 2006, SLA saw the warning signs of the
impending budget crisis and began working to
identify the best ways to empower our members
with information and tools that will help
them keep their jobs. This was the focus of
an ambitious two-year research effort, the
Alignment Project, undertaken by SLA to find
the most effective way for both the association
and our members to communicate the strategic
value of the information profession to employers.

Our challenge was to find out how our
members, and the jobs they perform, are
viewed by hiring executives; which activities
performed by info pros are valued most by
employers; and what language can be used
to effectively communicate the value that
information professionals add to the
organizations that employ them.

We undertook this challenge in the manner
that information professionals use in their
work every day: by conducting the best
research and finding the best information to
support evidence-based decisions. (All of our
findings are available on our Web site at www.sla.org/alignment.)

SLA is now using the results of this
research to re-focus our programs, services,
and member benefits. We are creating tools,
programs, and learning opportunities that are
designed to empower our members with the
language and skills that employers value in
today’s marketplace. We believe that the
lessons learned from the Alignment Project
research have provided SLA with a clear road
map by which to serve our members and help
them stay employed.

In addition to the Alignment Project, SLA
has taken other steps to give its members more
ammunition in the fight against budget cuts.
In 2008, SLA’s Board of Directors agreed to
provide all members with free access to our
Click University Webinars and replays. This
unprecedented move made available educational
opportunities that will teach members new and
marketable skills. Additionally, we have lowered
our dues for members who have been laid-off or
had their hours cut.

During times of crisis, librarians and
information professionals need the practical
tools, resources and networking opportunities
that SLA provides more than ever, and we are
committed to being their supportive partner
during this turbulent time. SLA will continue
to use the findings of the Alignment Project
research to shape our services to meet the
demands of a rapidly changing marketplace,
and we will stay focused on helping them
showcase the strategic value they provide
their organizations.

Authors’ Response:

We read with confusion the letter sent in
regard to our article in Searcher magazine’s
May 2010 issue, “Survival Lessons for
Libraries: Staying Afloat in Turbulent Waters —
News Media Libraries Hit Hard.” In that article,
we characterized SLA as an organization
“uniquely positioned” to collect and analyze
data on trends in the number of special libraries
over time, and specifically in the number of
openings and closings as well as the numbers
and types of job vacancies.

We firmly believe
these data are critical components that can help
us understand survival options for the profession
going forward. We noted that SLA’s focus is
elsewhere (than on this data collection) during
the time when the Association’s membership
is in crisis.

Our confusion stems from the SLA CEO’s
assessment that our statement, “the Association’s
focus is elsewhere,” is a “harsh assumption.”
Yet the author of the letter agreed that SLA
does not and has not collected the type of data
we reference. The letter goes on to note the
extensive Alignment Project findings — “just
now, two years after the final consultant’s
report, being translated into pragmatic lessons
that members can utilize” — as well as other
efforts the Association is making to retain
members (e.g., free Click U content, reductions
in dues for unemployed members, etc.) by
providing them with a variety of types of
support including networking opportunities
and continuing education.

We think our point was missed: That without
these data over time, the Alignment Project
findings are just another single point of data
whose impact is diminished by a lack of context.
If the CEO had read the other articles in our
Searcher series on “Survival Lessons”1 or looked
at the content of our recent SLA two-part Click
U Webinar, she would have seen that much
of what we have talked about relates to the
Alignment Project findings, and in particular to
the idea of strategic alignment as a necessary
survival tool. Last November, Pearlstein
delivered the Annual Lazerow Lecture at the
Simmons Graduate School of Library and
Information Science; many of her remarks
focused on the Alignment Project results and
how to put them into operation. Recently we
spoke to members of SNELLA (Southern New
England Law Librarians Association) and again
focused on the idea of strategic alignment,
including using information from the SLA
Alignment Project to help formulate pragmatic
ways in which to achieve this alignment. In fact,
in the very first article in our survival series
— on the topic of the EPA libraries — we
highlighted SLA’s advocacy that helped achieve
the reopening of these facilities and services.

SLA has done good work on behalf of its
members. However, as long-time members of
SLA and Fellows who believe in the role of the
Association vis-à-vis our profession, we are also
compelled to speak out when we believe the
Association has missed and continues to miss
an opportunity that is “right in its wheelhouse.”
With the termination of the Special Libraries
publication and the general ineffectiveness of
the Research Program (which we also wrote
about in the 2008 edition of Advances in
Librarianship2 — an article which garnered
no response from SLA), we believe the
Association does its members a disservice.
By not collecting data on the profession itself
thereby creating an understanding over time of
how the profession continues to develop, the
information needed to make decisions about
programming and other services is incomplete.
Without this data helping to create a holistic
view of trends in special libraries over time,
reactions to any economic downturn or to
changes in the way employers view our skill
set are hobbled by the very thing we rail
against — making decisions with incomplete
or inaccurate information.

It is our hope that the SLA Board and
management will see the wisdom of our
findings and act to encourage the publication
of trends in the field. Equally important will
be to publish the practical application of
these findings so that members can USE the
results. If the Association really saw the
downturn coming 4 years ago, why haven’t
the results of the Alignment Project been
translated into specific actions to help the
members in these critical times some 2 years
after the Alignment Project was completed?

Toby Pearlstein and James Matarazzo

Endnotes

1 “Survival Lessons”: A Series. Searcher magazine, May
2009, June 2009, September 2009, December
2009, and May 2010.

2 “A Review of Research Related to the Management of
Corporate Libraries.” Advances in Librarianship, vol.
31, 2008, pp.93–114.

Editor’s Comment:

Dr. Pearlstein has been an SLA member
since 1977, has chaired both the Transportation
and Business & Finance divisions, chaired
the Association Professional Development
Committee, and been a member of the
Association Research Committee. She was
made an SLA Fellow in 2007 and selected
for the SLA Hall of Fame in 2008.

Dr. Matarazzo has been a member of SLA
for 40 years and has held numerous offices
in the Association, including membership in
the Research Committee and service on the
Board from 1983–5. He is an SLA Fellow. He
received the SLA Professional Award in 1983
and 1991, the SLA President’s Award in
1988, and the Certificate of Excellence in
Publication Relations in 1990. In 1991, he
received the H.W. Wilson Award for the best
article in Special Libraries and, in 1995, the
Certificate of Achievement for Outstanding
Service to the Library and Information
Science Profession from SLA’s Library
Management Division.

An Ex-SLA-er Protests an Ex-SLA-er’s Protest

Editor’s Note:

In the January/February 2010 issue of Searcher, my Searcher’s Voice editorial, entitled
“Homecoming” [http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan10/voice.shtml], announced that
I was resigning from SLA in protest over the
Association’s joining the Open Book Alliance
in opposition to the Google Book Search
settlement. It was a very reluctant decision,
which I hoped the editorial made clear, and
I hoped — perhaps naively — that it might spur
the Association to reconsider its poor decision.

This letter came from a loyal SLA member to
protest my move.

I’ve followed your thoughts on the Google
settlement in Searcher, Information Today, and
on the AIIP and SLA Solo listservs. It’s been
an interesting discussion some of which I
agree with and much that I don’t. BUT — I
am deeply distressed and disappointed in your
decision to “sever… [your] long membership
with SLA [because of] its decision to launch
its second century by joining the opposition to
Google Books.” I believe that to be a totally
unacceptable position to take.

Granted I haven’t read everything about the
settlement, let alone the full text, but there is
one rather glaring hole that I don’t believe has
been adequately addressed by you or anyone
else. I refer to the bit about setting aside free
access to one seat per library.

To begin, is it one seat per branch, per
building, or per system? Even if one seat per
building how is it supposed to work? Is one
supposed to sign up ahead of time? Do you
get to spend the whole day reading the book?
What about lunch and bathroom breaks?
What if you need more than one day to finish
reading? Or do you only get to read for an hour
(half-hour when busy) at a time? Timed spots
might work for reference books but clearly are
untenable for fiction.

Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that
one has to read the book in the library. If this
is really the case I can’t begin to imagine how
any library, including NYPL, is going to be
able to afford enough seats, let alone have
access to enough computer terminals to make
this a reasonable method to access these
books — as it is there isn’t enough room, and
certainly not enough terminals, in any of their
buildings for those who need to use them.
And, even if it is permissible to download the
book and “take it home” I don’t believe any
library is going to be able to afford to have
more than a couple of people at a time using
the service, which means that it’ll still make
more sense for a library to do an interlibrary
loan for most books than to give someone even
a few days to read the book. The only time
that I can see it making sense to use Google
is when a book is just too fragile to travel and
I suspect that this does not constitute the vast
majority of books scanned.

And, finally, there’s the problem that even
with all of the copying that Google and others
are doing, there is a whole class of books
being left out of the equation: paperbacks.
Whole categories of subject matter are being
ignored, things like mysteries, science fiction,
romance etc.; things that never made it into
hardcover but that are a priceless resource for
lovers of those genres (as a lover of mysteries
of the thirties, forties, fifties I’m left going
through used bookstores hoping to find ever
more elusive titles!).

So, yes, it’s great to have all these books
potentially available. But there are a lot of
legitimate issues that have not really been
addressed, issues that SLA and others are
right to take issue with. That does not mean,
however, that going off in a huff because you
dislike this particular position is acceptable.
There are any number of things about SLA
that I too take issue with — not the least of
which was the recent attempt to change its
name, as a quick check of the listservs will
show. Thankfully in this case more of the
members voted with than against my view.
And, surely, if the past is any indicator of the
future, the issue will come up again. The
point, however, is that irrespective of the
outcome of that vote I would have continued
to remain a member of SLA because it speaks
to all of my concerns and offers a wealth of
opportunities for growth and networking. It
simply behooves me to continue arguing and
working for what I think is the best way to go.

That you’ve chosen not to do so is very sad;
I do hope you’ll reconsider.

Deborah Falik

Author’s Response:

It may seem unfair how editors always
seem to get the last word, but I do need to
make some comments.

As to some of the questions raised by
Ms. Falik about the plans for post-settlement
Google Books, I believe it’s one free access
terminal per library building. The library has
to promise to dedicate one computer to Google
Books and Google will supply the software.
How the library partitions the use of the
machine is the library’s business, the same as
it is with all public computers now. You have
to remember that people probably won’t use
Google Books the same way they use the
library’s books. They will probably do a lot
more hopping around, from chapter to chapter
or even page to page. That has problems of its
own for users, but that’s just the way it goes
with digital collections. And, of course, once
a library subscribes to the emerging Google
Books collection, they can open the doors to
patrons through general computer access.

As to the “uncovered” material, if a
contributing library has collected fiction,
as probably many have, then it will go in.
Paperbacks are not usually the focus of
university or research libraries, but who
knows? Perhaps paperbacks will come in
from publisher partners and that may involve
some expense for users.

However, Ms. Falik’s overall objections to
Google Books seem to be oriented toward how
to get more out of it, how to use it better. If
the Open Book Alliance — which SLA so
foolishly joined — has its way, there won’t
be any access to the collection at all. No one
need worry about its deficiencies; the Google
Books collection will serve next to nobody.

This is a potentially revolutionary collection.
Think what it could do for distance learning.
Think how it could bridge the digital divide
when a junior college in Akron can tap into
a research collection the equivalent of
Harvard’s. Think how it could support a
lifetime of learning and interest in things
scholarly. Most of the other members of the
Open Book Alliance don’t care about getting
books to readers, they care about selling books
to readers, or maybe they just don’t want
Google to succeed again at anything.

This action by SLA is professionally
embarrassing. It either looks like we’re so
incompetent that we can’t even see how much
it could mean to the world (and our clients) OR
it looks like we are more interested in clinging
to the status quo and our careers than the
welfare of our clients (and the world). That’s
why I resigned. But if you’ll read my editorial
to the end, you’ll see that I long to rejoin. If
SLA dropped out of the Open Book Alliance,
I would be back in a New York minute.